Skeptics seem to have an extreme devotion to morality and upholding the good while the dogmatic religions destroy the sanctitiy of the mind. Morality is interesting, spiritual people see morality as a connection to god, good deeds are pro spiritual while bad things are anti spiritual. While Skeptics see morality as a random something that has developed from evolution completely seperate to spirituality. Out of all the things that evolution has created morality is one of the more improtant evolutionary creations because we experience it. It has dictated our society for years creating massive empires. What I find interesting is that many skeptics never care to analyze morality and to see it to it's full extent. Skeptics treat morality a bit like religious people treat god. They uphold it without questioning it.

Morality is a trait that occoured in the past that allowed beings to produce a co-interdependincy to reap better results than doing the same thing alone. Thus this mental infrastructure was passed on to the next generation due to it's succesfullness in survivng. Why is it that skeptics rightously uphold morality as if it's the end all when morailty is just an evolutionary quirk. The universe is an innamitate emotionless void of moving energy thrashing itself endlessly and we seem to be a design that has developed to feel and experience an innamate universe while yet we are designed feel pain in spite of a universe that causes us pain. What is so moral about morality?

Most Skeptics have a moral sense to not kill someone but animals kill each other everyday what actually makes killing someone a bad thing? Morality creates a sense of empathy but the empathy itself is simply an illusion and has no bearing on the actualy state of a being. Why do skeptics hold on to morality when it is simply illusionary, are we victims to a judical system thats mindlessly based on morality.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 13 October 2012 - 04:29 PM

Mbyte, on 13 October 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

Most Skeptics have a moral sense to not kill someone but animals kill each other everyday what actually makes killing someone a bad thing? Morality creates a sense of empathy but the empathy itself is simply an illusion and has no bearing on the actualy state of a being. Why do skeptics hold on to morality when it is simply illusionary, are we victims to a judical system thats mindlessly based on morality.

Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone acted on their urges?

I'm not sure why it is so difficult to grasp morality without some kind of divine dictator enforcing it.

Most Skeptics have a moral sense to not kill someone but animals kill each other everyday what actually makes killing someone a bad thing?

Actually, there's no more killing amongst animals than there is amongst people. Some animals kill for food, some animals will kill if they feel they or their young are in danger, some will kill in situations of severe overcrowding and stress, but killing 'for the fun of it' is relatively rare. Whereas, humans kill each other by the thousand in wars ...... seeming to prefer that to using our reasoning, compromising and diplomacy skills. There are an awful lot of humans it seems, who do not think killing someone is a bad thing ...... right across the board of beliefs!

"I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 13 October 2012 - 07:59 PM

Mbyte, on 13 October 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

Most Skeptics have a moral sense to not kill someone but animals kill each other everyday what actually makes killing someone a bad thing?

Like animals ( well that is what we all are ) many of us will kill to protect our loved ones and ourselves, as an act of self defence.... Killing for fun - .those that kill other humans for fun are mentally insane ... My cats kill for fun too, but that is in their nature, like many other cats and a good few animals that will kill for pleasure not as much as humans would ( obviously ) but you would be rather surprised by the number of animals that do kill for pleasure.... Apart from humans, the only other creature on earth to go to war would likely be the ant

Question - What living creature has killed more on earth - Humans OR The Mosquito ?

Answer - Believe it or not, the mosquito has in fact killed more people than all the wars in history...and they aren't even religious lol

Most animals lack the capacity to understand what they are doing. The idea of "kill" simply means to stop their prey from escaping, period.

Humans however have the capacity to understand what they are doing and possess the ability top reason and think as well as control their primal/animalistic urges. (usually).

I fail to see, however, how "skeptics" play into this morality thing. Are you saying, Mbyte, that you do not possess any morality and think it is ok to kill anyone you want for any reason or even no reason?
Why single out the "skeptics"?

You talk as if somehow we are above animals in the way we act but the fact is that morality and our ability to apparently not kill for fun is not apart of a hierarchy of morality just a third arm of evolution. Just because we can see the difference of not killing for fun does not mean we are somehow more civilised than animals, we are just more deluded by evolutionary morality.

I pick out skeptics because this is a point of view skeptics should be aware of, too many skeptics have fought for their materialistic views and ***t on everyone elses parade while yet not acknowledging the full extent and seriousness of their views. Most skeptics are not aware that they are comforted by morality like those are comforted by life after death.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 14 October 2012 - 06:53 AM

Mbyte, on 14 October 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

I pick out skeptics because this is a point of view skeptics should be aware of, too many skeptics have fought for their materialistic views and ***t on everyone elses parade while yet not acknowledging the full extent and seriousness of their views. Most skeptics are not aware that they are comforted by morality like those are comforted by life after death.

You're talking like materialists aren't aware of morality or consequences.

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.
Plato

Posted 14 October 2012 - 01:08 PM

A shared moral foundation helps a community function. You talk as though it is something that is never questioned and yet just on this board you can find tons of topics which at their heart are a moral debate. They are also not a fixed entity. Different cultures do develop variations in their moral structure and it is something that changes over time. For example it was not considered morally wrong to have slaves at certain times and places yet in modern western culture it is. You appear to be suggesting that having a moral code is somehow at odds with a skeptical and critical outlook of the world. The benefits of a moral code within society are clear and enable us to function as a group, this team work has been essential to progress and to the accumulation of knowledge.

I am not entirely certain I get your argument. We generally accept the morals of the culture into which we were born but we also question them. If we were all to run around killing and stealing the very fabric of society would crumble.

Morality creates a sense of empathy but the empathy itself is simply an illusion and has no bearing on the actualy state of a being.

Actually it's the reverse, empathy creates morality. Why do you say morality is an illusion? Because God and objective moral values don't exist? Mirror neuronsare not an illusion. The empathy, reciprocity, fairness and compassion we see in non-human animals are not illusions.

Quote

Why do skeptics hold on to morality when it is simply illusionary, are we victims to a judical system thats mindlessly based on morality.

Never mind morality, wait til you tell the judiciary there is no free will.

Anyways, here's a video of the primatologist Frans de Waal on animal morality;